Are the hands part of the bat???

1.) Strike....dead ball, no matter where the ball goes.

2.) HBP.

grateful...so if the ball hits flesh it's a DEAD BALL. Following this logic if the ball hits bat then flesh it's a strike/dead ball no matter if the batter is swinging or avoiding or where the ball lands. But if the ball hits flesh first then bat, it's a HBP or strike/dead ball depending on the batter's action. Hope that makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by BB:
But if the ball hits flesh first then bat, it's a HBP or strike/dead ball depending on the batter's action.

Not ONLY the batters action, but also the location of the ball. If the ball strikes flesh first IN THE STRKE ZONE it is a strike (and a dead ball) regardless of the batters action.

Good point FVB..so if batter is WAY crowding the plate to the extent of encroaching on the strike zone he might get a free love tap from the pitcher and suffer a strike call in the process.

quote:

Originally posted by BB:
Good point FVB..so if batter is WAY crowding the plate to the extent of encroaching on the strike zone he might get a free love tap from the pitcher and suffer a strike call in the process.

yep... I've never seen it personally, but I've worked with 2 different guys who say that they've called a strike on picth that hit the batter in the strike zone.

quote:

Originally posted by BB:
grateful...so if the ball hits flesh it's a DEAD BALL. Following this logic if the ball hits bat then flesh it's a strike/dead ball no matter if the batter is swinging or avoiding or where the ball lands.

Not so... if the is batted then hits the batter it is a foul ball, not necessarily a strike.

Also, in my understaning--at least of OBR--the distinction between the batter and the bat is ambiguous. Which one strikes the ball first may be a major factor in deciding if a ball was batted or hit the batter, but is not the sole factor.

For example, a pitch which is struck at, catches a little knuckle on its way to the bat handle and is hit into fair or foul territory may be ruled a batted ball at the umpire's discretion. Or a pitch which comes inside on a batter, is not struck at, and hits a little of the bat knob and a little of his hand--regardless of which it hit first--may be ruled a hit by pitch, if the umpire feels it was not a batted ball.

Now, if a pitch clearly hit the batter's hand, and not the bat at all, it would be ruled a hit batter and if in the strike zone would be a dead ball/strike. But if it gets a little of both, the umpire is free to rule it batted or not based on other factors than which it hits first.

So a batted ball (as opposed to a hit batter) is kind of like a swing, there is no clear cut definition and the umpire rules based on whatever factors apply to a given situation.

If this is wrong, could someone please cite a rule clarifying... and if anybody wonders where I got this idea I would be happy to look it up in OBR, citing the rules which I see as suggesting this.

quote:

Originally posted by lynBall:
if anybody wonders where I got this idea I would be happy to look it up in OBR, citing the rules which I see as suggesting this.

I'm interested in your rule reference. I am working from memory here, but IIRC, OBR doesn't have any provisions for "the ball hitting both the bat and the batter's hands at once." As far as the rules are concerned, the ball either struck the bat or the batter; and where it went after that is irelevant to whether it is a hit batsman or a batted ball.

Now, since an umpire judges which is hit first almost totally by sound (it happens too fast to possibly see which it hit first), what I do is try to determine if I can discern 2 different sounds. If I can it is easy to differentiate which happened first, but if it is only one sound then I have to decide if the sound was a crack or a thud and If it is a crack I have to assume that it hit bat, but a thud/slap sound I will rule as a hit batsman. Also, if I can call it a hit batsman I will.

I can find no reference in the rules marking any difference between the batter and the bat at all in this kind of a situation--so, even as you wonder where I am getting my understanding, I wonder where you get yours (where does OBR specify that it matters if a ball hits the bat as opposed to the batter). To be fair, and in the interest of getting an accurate picture of the rules, I will give you a basic outline of where my position comes from:

My interpretation is based on the wording of the hit batter rule:
6.08(b) "He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless..."

The use of the word "touched" here is what I am noting... OBR offers a definition (in 2.00):
"TOUCH. To touch a player or umpire is to touch any part of his body, his clothing or his equipment."
(It is worth note that similar language is used in the defintion of "Person.")

The conclusion that I draw from this definition is that there is no difference to the rules between a batter and his equipment (particularly having to do with the pitched ball hitting them).

The hit batter rule has (basically) two exceptions which would allow for the ball to hit the bat (or batter for that matter) without a hit batter ruling... if the pitch is struck at or in the strike zone and if the ball is not pitched--i.e. it is thrown or batted.

As near I can tell, OBR offers no explanation as what is a batted ball. The figuring in my interpretation is that this is purposely left to the umpire's discretion--much like the term "struck at"--to prevent subtle differences between a foul ball and a batter/runner advanced to first from disrupting the game.

If I missed something in this logic... let me know.

It is often considered one of the greatest myths in youth baseball that the hands are part of the bat. My interpretation of the rule is the opposite that the bat is, instead, part of the hands.

Basically, that the concern is not over whether the ball hit the bat or the hands first, but simply with whether it was batted.

In most situations this leads to the same call as Fvb is making, except it can prevent some less intuitive rulings in certian situations.

So under certain circumstances a ball that contacts a batter's hand and lands in fair territory can be ruled a fair ball????? That's the call I saw an ump make but I disagreed enthusiastically. The game was in Pony League, not HS, but rules are basically the same I'm told. Play was bases loaded, 2 out, pitch came inside and batter had begun normal stride and hand motion. Batter stopped motion and pulled hands into belt area. Ball hit bottom hand/bat or bat/bottom hand, depending on your perspective, and landed about 1 ft in front of home plate while batter hit the ground from retreat momentum and proceded to flop around a bit and wail while holding said hand. Blue made no call but watched the action until catcher picked up ball and stepped on home plate. Then blue called 3d out. Of course runners had made no move because of obviously hit batter. All blue would say was "Fair ball. 3 away" My arguement was you cannot have a fair ball if the ball contacts the batter while in the batter's box regardless of what the ball hit first. And that's the rest of the story. Thanks for all the comments.

I had a similiar situation as you described. The only difference is the ball travel 60 feet down the first base line. I called it fair. The batter was standing at the plate holding his hand. The coach wanted me to call HBP. I said if the ball traveled 60 feet it did not make contact with the hand.

In the situation you discribe above, if the ball only flopped 1 foot I would think it hit the hand.

Regardless of the circumstances the only time the hands are part of the bat is when the head is part of the hat and the cleats are part of the ground. The only other exception is when having dinner, in that case the hands are always part of the fork.

does anybody have a real answer--i.e. they know for sure--for this issue?

the hands are never part of the bat. period....


A ball either hits hands or bat in or out of the zone............the umpire decides which it is......

quote:

Originally posted by piaa_ump:
the hands are never part of the bat. period....


A ball either hits hands or bat in or out of the zone............the umpire decides which it is......

Agreed

quote:

Originally posted by lynBall:
My interpretation is based on the wording of the hit batter rule:
6.08(b) "He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless..."

The use of the word "touched" here is what I am noting... OBR offers a definition (in 2.00):
"TOUCH. To touch a player or umpire is to touch any part of his body, his clothing or his equipment."
(It is worth note that similar language is used in the defintion of "Person.")

The conclusion that I draw from this definition is that there is no difference to the rules between a batter and his equipment (particularly having to do with the pitched ball hitting them).

Think through the ramifications of not differentiating between the bat and the batter...
Imagine a high inside fastball thet hits the batter in the helmet. It is obviously a hit-batsman, but what if he ducks at the last second and the ball hits his bat and rolls to the pitcher? Under the logic that you have proposed that too is a hit batsman since the bat is part of his "person" as defined in rule 2.

Now as an umpire I'm going to rule the ball that hits the (unswung, in this case) bat as a batted ball, which means that I am drawing a line of distinction between the batter and his bat. Now that I've decided that they are 2 seperate entities I must decide where exactly the line that seperates bat from batter should be drawn. I draw the line between the bat and the batter, that means that NO PART of the bat can be construed as part of the hands and that NO PART of the hands can be construed as part of the bat.

Final analysis, I have to judge which it hit (or hit first) and apply the appropriate rule from there.

quote:

Imagine a high inside fastball thet hits the batter in the helmet. It is obviously a hit-batsman, but what if he ducks at the last second and the ball hits his bat and rolls to the pitcher? Under the logic that you have proposed that too is a hit batsman since the bat is part of his "person" as defined in rule 2.

This is so unless I rule a batted ball. I need not necessarily draw a line between the bat and the batter in order to draw a line between a batted ball and a hit by pitch. And if I do draw such a line, where?

quote:

I draw the line between the bat and the batter, that means that NO PART of the bat can be construed as part of the hands and that NO PART of the hands can be construed as part of the bat.

What I want to know is where do the rules draw the line. I can't see that they draw it where you do. As near as I can see, this is entirely up to the umpire's judgment... like a swing. This leaves the umpire more--not less--free to deal with the kind of situation you point out fvb.

quote:

the hands are never part of the bat. period....

Thanks Piaa, I have heard things like this before and I have little doubt that you are right... what I am interested in discovering is why? What rule specifies this or even suggests it? Or is this just a general agreement amoung professional umpires to guide the judgment call?

The rule book is not the "all seeing" document that we would like it to be. Its more like the Constitution in that the spirit of the rule and the intent of the rule makers are taken in account. By nature, the rule book invests a large amount of the rule application to umpire judgment.

For Umpires, to progress up the ladder takes study and outside resource manuals. There are a number of manuals available today that provide in depth analysis of rules, mechanics and situations.

Some are:

JEA- Jim Evans Annotated
BRD- Baseball Rules Difference
J/R- Jaksa/Roder

These books present a deep anaysis of just about every rule. And they are accepted as the authoritative ruling on rules interpretations...

Hope that helps. I will add that the "hands are part of the bat" issue is probably one of the most derided stances a person can make to an umpire......This is one of those indicators that usually tells an umpire whether or not he is dealing with someone who knows the rules or not......and if someone claims the hands are part of the bat, then you pretty much are at square one......

good luck....

Test:

Place hands on bat. Now drop the bat. If hands remain with bat, then Yes. If not, then No. The real answer is that the hands are never part of the bat. Much like the baseball is never part of the glove. Two seperate issues.

I have been away from the board for a while so I am weighing in quite late. The hands are never part of the bat. If the ball contacts the batter then kill the ball. What you do with it after that depends on what happened.
1) If the the batter didn't swing, the ball wasn't in the zone, and he tried to avoid then you have a hit batter.
2) If he swung or the ball was in the zone then you have a strike.
3) If it wasn't in the zone and he didn't try to avoid then it's a ball.
As PIAA said the rulebook doesn't have every instance spelled out. It can't so either you have to combine rules, make inferences or go to interp manuals.
In the end there is no way any interp can be stretched to make a ball hitting the hands be foul or fair. It is simply a deadball.

FVB10,

Do you know an umpire named Jeff Rutledge?

Thanks